In chicago that is called Tuesday. But I am referring though to the vast majority of charges which are illegally parading or demonstrating in the Capitol. The only reason we are spending huge sums of money and resources in hunting down every perpetrator no matter how petty the crime is to score political points and the ultimate wet Dream to indict Trump.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Roe v. Wade Overturned (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter ekbeats
- Start date
In chicago that is called Tuesday. But I am referring though to the vast majority of charges which are illegally parading or demonstrating in the Capitol. The only reason we are spending huge sums of money and resources in hunting down every perpetrator no matter how petty the crime is to score political points and the ultimate wet Dream to indict Trump.
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
Or the Supreme Court. At some point a case is going to be presented to them where they'll have to define fetal personhood within the context of the 14th Amendment.
dkp993
Footballguy
Nice deflection from your attempt to downplay what happened. Regardless of what happened/s elsewhere those “teachers and nurses” are getting exactly what they deserve with any accountability that comes. That also includes anyone else involved in any other way.
Last edited by a moderator:
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
I think that those that honestly believe that abortion is murder are not going to be all that happy about this decision for that long. There is still not the "right to life" (in practical terms) that they want. And unless this works out in totally unexpected ways, there are still going to be plenty of abortions going on. But I guess right now I'm at a bit of a loss as to how such a decision happens. Or more accurately how a case would come before the court where such a decision would make sense.
Nugget
Footballguy
Sand
Footballguy
Maybe I'm naive, but shouldn't each team have some slam dunk ready-to-pass bills just waiting for a moment of opportunity?
-OZ-
Footballguy
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
There was no opportunity. And while I agree with you on the concept, I don't think there are ever real legislation "ready to go" from either party. By real legislation I mean for example the difference between repeal ObamaCare bills when it was going nowhere and once there was a chance it might pass.
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
If the 14th amendment allows for reasonable medical decisions - doesn't that give the woman the right to make the decision in an instance where her life may be in jeopardy (no idea how often this happens)
and if so, when challenged, won't the supreme court have to throw out abortion laws that restrict the above decision
and if so, when challenged, won't the supreme court have to throw out abortion laws that restrict the above decision
GordonGekko
Footballguy
Kavanaugh, Gorsuch and Coney Barrett were asked if Roe was, given the time and place, "current" precedent.
They said "Yes" (Obviously)
All were asked how they would treat precedent.( Not just Roe, but across all established case law)
They said they would respect precedent. (What else are they going to say? Their legal careers showed they applied that principle. They wouldn't have been short listed otherwise. The same defense of these three operate as the same defense of the use of precedent and application for Kagan, Sotomayor and even pedophile apologist Brown Jackson)
The current ruling is about the misapplication of actual precedent (along with other factors) by Blackmun, Powell, Burger, Marshall, Douglas, Brennan and Stewart.
Kavanaugh, Gorsuch and Coney Barrett saying they recognize existing precedent and respect that precedent in application as a general matter does not automatically disbar them from overturning a wrongly decided rule of law in the future.
What you are saying is makes no sense at all. In order to defend your tribalism, you've reduced the entire use of law in our country to a stagnant death and to operate as a rotting corpse with no regard to the evolution of our society as whole. You know who makes those kind of arguments just like yours? Authoritarian regimes all throughout recorded human history. And it almost always precedes some version of ethnic cleansing. Because it's a lot easier than delivering wins for every day working class people and their children and making their lives better so they want to come out and vote for you so you can get the majorities you need to get the kind of laws you want.
What gets lost in translation in Roe is SCOTUS White, who discusses the states being "constitutionally disentitled" This is the part no one talks about because there is truly no defense to it. You cannot fabricate "law out of whole cloth" and you definitely cannot legislate from the bench. When Amy Totenberg, an Obama appointee and the sister of hard line zealot Nina Totenberg of NPR, in the Georgia battleground ruled to push through the widespread of use of the Dominion Voting Systems, even though they didn't meet the guidelines of the state legislature, and DVS was denounced in public by Klobuchar, Warren and Abrams, the situation became very very clear.
The radical leftists will immediately devalue any institution and any tradition and any principle of actual law merely because they didn’t get exactly what they want, when they wanted it, and packaged how they demanded it.
They only seek to weaponize those institutions, traditions and legal principles to to punish dissent, free speech and apparently the entire working class collective.
Do you not find it telling, if not completely and sadly predictable, that that the radical left, claiming to defend all Identity Politics and inclusion and social justice and fighting the good fight against all systemic racism and tyranny are also the ones telling you to pour all your hate into Clarence Thomas, a black man?
You just dogmatically repeat cooked social media outrage clickbait that's been prepacked for your tribalism. The same media optic tactics used on you are the same ones used all over the world to recruit embryo terrorists.
It's your free speech, but what a pure waste of actual free speech.
dkp993
Footballguy
Please save your diatribes for someone who cares and will actually read it. You’re hyperbole and overwhelming desire to bucket people then lecture is tiresome and boring.
Its your free speech and I won’t taking it away from you, I just won’t waste my time with it.
BladeRunner
Footballguy
You should read it. It goes directly to your assertion that the last 4 Conservative candidates lied. They didn't. You just misintepreted them incorrectly
-OZ-
Footballguy
that’s the point here, their words don’t match their actions. Of course they won’t come straight out and say “our party benefited from inaction”
Ramblin Wreck
Footballguy
People are allowed to change their minds, including SCOTUS members
Alex P Keaton
Footballguy
Yep. It’s also silly that anyone would have believed the last 4 would support Roe. SC nominees (both “sides”) have learned how to play the game in the nomination process. It was pretty obvious most of these folks would overturn Roe.
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
Because democrats suffer from inaction. Even as a centrist party the expectation is that they advance legislation that makes positive changes. It is the other party that is expected to thwart change or even undo it.
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
Sure! I also saw the Muhammad Ali HBO movie a few years ago. Let us know when that actually happens again.
dkp993
Footballguy
@jm192 I’m quoting you here as you asked a similar question in another thread.
Alex you’re speaking to exactly my point. They didn’t have the balls to answer the question honestly. So they wordsmith and tap danced around giving answers and insinuated one thing when we all knew they would do the other the first opportunity they had (and if we believe Susan Collins lied to her in her office calling it settled law). That’s lying. When you’re not honest with your answer that’s a lie. If your wife or best friend did the same thing to you (insinuate one thing then turn around and do the exact opposite) you’d call them a liar. They politicked it to get confirmed. I expect that from politicians. But for lifelong confirmed supreme court justices the bar is higher. We all knew what they said was a lie when they said it, just because we knew it then doesn’t mean it isn’t a lie now when they do what we knew they would.
Last edited by a moderator:
NorvilleBarnes
Footballguy
AOC wants them impeached for lying under oath.
Alex P Keaton
Footballguy
BladeRunner
Footballguy
It's not their fault that AOC doesn't understand words and can't understand what they mean when strung together.
Last edited by a moderator:
Sand
Footballguy
You should take the opportunity to put aside your biases and read it. It's probably the best post he's ever written.
Sand
Footballguy
GordonGekko
Footballguy
Presidential Executive Order 9066 by FDR put the Japanese into internment camps.
Korematsu v. U.S. in 1944, then SCOTUS upheld the EO.
Trump v. Hawaii in 2018, then SCOTUS overturned Korematsu.
Under your principle, it would have been impossible to overturn Korematsu. That means, in the most technical sense, the sitting President could order a specific minority/ethnic group into an internment camp.
Now someone will say that's never going to happen again. And I'll say recently someone went before Congress and said a man can get pregnant. So OK, let's not pretend that bizarre things don't happen.
Now some will try to parse down if Korematsu was explicitly overruled or not. But the principle of what I'm discussing still stands.
If you go back to the late 40s, lots of people in the public would have still probably supported the internment camps. Lots of Americans lost sons and brothers and fathers and cousins and husbands in WW2. But as time moves on, the context changes. How our society operates and functions does change.
If the basis of your rage and vitriol is SCOTUS overturning previous Courts, then you'll be angry for a very very very long time.
You are a tribalist. In the worst possible sense. You want things and demand things without reflecting on the impact long term nor with the full acceptance that when you open a pathway, it can also one day be used in the other direction. This is the basis of the mind numbing rage from leftists when Obama had Harry Reid nuke the judicial filibuster without any true regard that eventually power would change hands at some point, and that it could be used against the Democratic Party. That ugly moment in American history is one of the root catalysts for the entire Garland/Gorsuch affair.
You demand compliance without consequence.
You know who is trained under that specific methodology? Terrorists. All over the world. All throughout recorded human history. Extremist groups use it as a core tenet of how they recruit and indoctrinate new cannon fodder.
Then don't read "it" if you don't want. You know who else refuses context?
Recruits for terrorist organizations.
Ask yourself who is uploading all that social media clickbait outrage porn you are dogmatically repeating.
dkp993
Footballguy
Yeah I skimmed enough to see him claim my tribalism and the accusations I can’t think for myself because of my social media. I’m good with my position on his posts.
Last edited by a moderator:
dkp993
Footballguy
dkp993
Footballguy
It’s almost as if you aren’t reading my posts at all either. If so what you say here (and elsewhere) would make sense, but if you had they wouldn’t at all. And this is why I have less then zero desire to interact with you. You’re not here for dialogue, you’re here to lecture and play big man. So please feel free to stop quoting me, we’ve been around this block a few times and know how it ends.
jm192
Footballguy
I appreciate the wife/friend analogy. If I asked my wife if she cheated and she said "I can't answer that because I may be involved in a case," I wouldn't say you've lied to me. But I'd have my answer. And while I agree we left the court room with our answer found in the form of tapdancing and wordsmithing--I don't think that is impeachable.
And while it's syntax, it's also not.
I watched a lot of the ACB confirmation hearings. I don't remember her ever directly saying "Roe v Wade is untouchable." I remember multiple times she declined to answer questions that were in regards to or related to potential cases that she might would hear. As I understood it (and still understand it), that's the norm for these hearings. Justices don't want to comment on cases for this very reason. So, as best I can recall, she didn't directly comment on it. And while I can appreciate the sentiment that "everyone knew what was going to happen," I don't think she ever overtly said it wouldn't happen. And I think there has to be a direct lie to be impeached.
I do remember Klobuchar asking if Roe v Wade was a super precedent. And then there was the whole embarrassing thing where ACB asked what her definition of super precedent was and Klobuchar admitted she didn't know. ACB went on to say that to her, a super precedent was a ruling that was so universally agreed upon, that no one would ever dare challenge it. I think she referenced Brown vs Board of education. She went on to say that since there was so much discussion on Roe v Wade, it would seem it's not a super precedent.
I don't think you're trying to single out 1 side vs the other. But KBJ also declined to answer questions related to potential cases in the same manner.
I also don't think she lied to get approved. The Republicans had the votes. They wanted her. The idea that she lied her way to the stand and pulled a fast one on congress is absurd.
Last edited by a moderator:
dkp993
Footballguy
Thanks jm, appreciate your response.
To be clear, I said in my first post, impeachment was not realistic. That not the place I’m coming from. I’m coming from a place of holding these people to the highest of standards, even more so then the POTUS imo as they have life long positions of setting the laws of our lands. I expect/demand honesty, and while ACB certainly tapped dance the best of the last 3, if we’re being objective we know she already had a formed opinion that was extraordinarily unlikely to change. But the absence of an answer for this or any other potential case for fear of actually expressing an opinion on it isn’t ok, in fact it’s disingenuous in my book as it’s her job to have an opinion. What she and the others are doing is playing politics by answering without actually saying anything. When we are looking for honesty that’s lying.
And In regards to the wife/friend analogy a better example would be if you asked your wife if she cheated on you and she said… “well based on our previous history of not cheating the precedent is set and matters, and precedent factors very heavily into every decision I make” she would be implying to you she didn’t cheat. But that answer also tells you, because your not stupid, she likely cheated. That’s lying.
Last edited by a moderator:
jm192
Footballguy
I feel that the Senators are responsible for the show you see. If everything were perfect, the Senators would behave differently, and we'd have a very different process. We'd ask about credentials, your guiding principles, how you'd handle tough ethical situations (not related to specific cases). And we wouldn't have an entire party refusing to vote for a candidate because of who nominated them.
They know being asked about a case that a nominee may preside over puts them in a bad spot. They want to put them in a bad spot. And doing so is in my opinion...playing politics.
When everyone else in the room is playing politics, I'll give the nominees a little wee lay over tapdancing and wordsmithing.
GordonGekko
Footballguy
VIDEO: Barrett declines to say whether Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided Oct 13, 2020
Under questioning by Senator Dianne Feinstein on the second day of her confirmation hearings for the Supreme Court
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26nt_scPETI
VIDEO: Amy Klobuchar Questions Barrett On What Court Rulings Qualify As 'Super Precedent' | MSNBC Oct 13, 2020
Sen. Amy Klobuchar questioned Judge Amy Coney Barrett on why certain cases qualify as "super precedent," such as Brown v. Board of Education, and others do not, such as Roe v. Wade.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlchBfW036s
*********
I'm reading your posts. You aren't reading mine, you've already said as much.
You want to call ACB a liar, go ahead, unpack how she's a liar. Explain it. We can go through her entire hearing, in every section that discusses Roe, or we can go hour by hour, minute by minute, second by second, and break it all down in it's entirety. Everything is a matter of public record, everything is accessible to video and audio, everything is accessible via transcripts.
Amy Klobuchar is not a low level jurist. She's actually quite skilled. But going up against ACB is like going up against John Wick. ACB is literally toying with Klobuchar.
I don't have a problem defending my positions. You seem to have a problem explaining yours.
dkp993
Footballguy
It only puts them “in a bad spot” because they are forced to be honest. Not sure why that’s a bad thing. That’s exactly the type of people that are needed on the court. People of ethics who rise above not manage down to get through.
Last edited by a moderator:
-OZ-
Footballguy
AOC is intelligent enough to know this won’t happen (Probably that it shouldn’t happen either) but it generates publicity for her.
Last edited by a moderator:
dkp993
Footballguy
I’m having no issues defending my position if you’ve read any of my replies to others. My thoughts are laid bare for all to see there. The reason I don’t with you is you constantly misrepresented my positions. In fact you tell me what my position is (which is not mine) then tell my how I’m wrong on a position I was never arguing.
For example in our last two posts you claim….
“You are a tribalist. In the worst possible sense. You want things and demand things without reflecting on the impact long term nor with the full acceptance that when you open a pathway, it can also one day be used in the other direction. This is the basis of the mind numbing rage from leftists when Obama had Harry Reid nuke the judicial filibuster without any true regard that eventually power would change hands at some point, and that it could be used against the Democratic Party. That ugly moment in American history is one of the root catalysts for the entire Garland/Gorsuch affair.”
….. and earlier were claiming….
“In order to defend your tribalism, you've reduced the entire use of law in our country to a stagnant death and to operate as a rotting corpse with no regard to the evolution of our society as whole. You know who makes those kind of arguments just like yours? Authoritarian regimes all throughout recorded human history. And it almost always precedes some version of ethnic cleansing. Because it's a lot easier than delivering wins for every day working class people and their children and making their lives better so they want to come out and vote for you so you can get the majorities you need to get the kind of laws you want.”
I claim neither of these positions. In fact just a few days ago I quoted you as being right in the mistake the Dems made in blowing up the filibuster. I also have never claimed that I have any issues with them overturning Roe. My issue is everyone knew they would do that during the confirmations yet they didn’t have the balls to say it, a case I’ve made in all my other posts.
When you start listening and asking questions I will happily engage with you. But as long as you continue to try to tell me what I think, and be wrong, it’s not worth my time
Last edited by a moderator:
jm192
Footballguy
But here we have a US Congress woman threatening impeachment because she feels they lied.
What happens when ACB answers the question saying she would do x. When the case gets in front of her, there's something that makes her reconsider and she doesn't do what she said she would do in the Senate hearing. Well now, they've got you. Now you've lied to congress. And if tapdancing and wordsmithing gets them talking about impeachment--imagine actually saying you'd do something you don't do.
I don't even know if this is a thing, but thinking outloud:
Say ACB says it's her mission in life to overturn Roe v Wade. What stops the Democrats from demanding she recuse herself from the hearings due to bias? Sure, she can do whatever she wants. But what a firestorm.
And, maybe you say--well if she is biased she should recuse herself. But they've all got bias. What a wonderful world it would be if Chuck Schumer wanted to drill the Democratic nominees on their bias. They don't. They want to trap the people on the other side.
It would be great if everyone answered every question fully. But I can't fault them for not making waves, not letting the Senators from the "other team" put them in a bad spot.
dkp993
Footballguy
Not so sure why its hard to answer (or expect them to) with something like. “Regarding ‘x’ as I currently understand it my position is ‘y’. But I’m also open to the fact there may be aspects of ‘x’ where I’m not informed or new information could be presented. In that case my current position of ‘y’ could change”.
Yeah I guess this is where you and I diverge.
That's what Robert Bork did, and he ended up getting Borked as a result.
Nobody on either side has done it since.
Which I think is good, because questions about how a judge would rule in a future case shouldn't be asked. They have little value in evaluating the qualifications of a nominee. Their effect is only to help politicize the confirmation process -- and IMO we don't need additional help with that.
It was settled law. That wasn't a lie.
Susan Collins lied when she said she understood "settled law" to mean something other than that it was a Supreme Court case that hadn't yet been overturned.
No reasonable person would think that any nominee would pledge to rule (or not to rule) a certain way in a future case before reading briefs or hearing arguments about it. Susan Collins is a reasonable person. She didn't believe any such thing. When she intimated otherwise, she lied.
That's okay. She wasn't under oath, and politicians are expected to lie.
Last edited by a moderator:
dkp993
Footballguy
I disagree, especially when said people are picked specifically because they will likely to rule a certain way. These people aren’t robots with blank slates who wait for data to be entered then spit out an unbiased opinion, no matter how much we idealize them to be. They are all extremely smart well informed people who know more then enough to have an opinion when asked. We all saw the game being played before our eyes and just because it’s become the norm for us to expect the bs non answers to be given doesn’t make it ok.
As I said now multiple times, I’m not calling for something to be done. That cake is baked and we’ve got no choice but to eat it. I’m just tired of being told we need to accept that it tastes like #### because that’s how it’s done.
At some point we have to start expecting more from the people who are running this country. And if forthright honest opinions aren’t expected or demanded of our nominees for our highest court where can it be?
Last edited by a moderator:
Glad to see you readily admit you support politicizing the judiciary with your political litmus tests. It has been kind if obvious from cases like Rittenhiuse, but that was a more black and white admission. Besides, the Dems voted 1 to 48 to endorse Kavanaugh, so he definitely was not picked for his support of Roe.
Last edited by a moderator:
GordonGekko
Footballguy
The United States Supreme Court has the power to overrule precedent - This is not in dispute
Acknowledging previous case law as precedent is stating a fact- This is not in dispute
Stating this fact is not a commitment by any sitting member of SCOTUS to absolutely never overturn anything they may acknowledge as precedent - This is not in dispute with anyone here except you
I guess people here will let you run around some more and exhaust yourself before they tell you about the Ginsburg Rule.
zoonation
Footballguy
Yes...h-o-m-o-c-i-d-e. Lots of people view those 'clumps of cells' as a living human being, especially during the third trimester.
shader
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
What, in your opinion, would be a suitable punishment for women who choose to have an abortion, and doctors that perform abortions?
timschochet
Footballguy
So public service? That seems rather inconsistent with the punishment for any other homicide.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
Similar threads
